pm_workflow_product_strategy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the tool as returning a Markdown workflow plan and lists steps. It mentions 'Effort Level: comprehensive' and that the AI client orchestrates execution, but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or if any data is modified. Given the tool is a planner, the description is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a header, effort level, steps list, args, and returns. It is front-loaded and each section is concise. Minor redundancy in the args section (repeats schema) but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a workflow tool, the description lists all steps, arguments, and the return format (Markdown plan). It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the workflow entails. Without an output schema, the description compensates by describing the output. However, it does not specify what each step returns or how they combine.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and descriptions from the schema, adding that 'context' is optional and the return format. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a 'Product Strategy workflow' to 'frame a major strategic initiative with competitive context and documented decisions'. The steps (e.g., pm_competitive_analysis) distinguish it from sibling workflow tools like pm_workflow_feature_kickoff or pm_workflow_lean_startup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Use this tool to get a complete workflow plan' and that 'The AI client orchestrates execution'. It implies usage for product strategy initiatives but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling workflows or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.